First I want to make one thing clear: I'm not debating wether evolution is [b]true[/b] or not, I'm assuming it is true. So I don't want any reply against evolution. Secondly I want to make an important distinction between specimens and species. The first ones are living beings, whose objective is staying alive and creating descendency. The second ones are just information, mostly coded as a set of genes. Actually specimens are the main tool the species have to keep existing (we're slaves of our own DNA, all it wants us for is to pass on the information that it contains). However the mankind is starting to change that. We're creating a symbiosis between us as specimens and species itself. In fact cloning and genetic manipulation are alternatives for species to persists [b]without needing specimens to do so[/b]. Evolution will change the species so they can get as more advantage as possible from that symbiosis. For example: rabbits. We eat them, we like them, so we farm them. From the specimen point of view that's a total disaster, all of them get killed painfully?, most of them without even being able to create descendency. But from the species point of view everything changes: we'll never let the rabbits become extinct because [b]we farm them[/b]. That's exactly what the specie, the information that determines it wants, and evolution will help it to archieve its goals. Rabbits will become bigger, will evolve to have more meat, and more tasty one. They'll evolve to be eaten. Because evolution doesn't care about what happens to the specimens as long as the specie is being kept alive... Most eatable species will evolve to be tastier. It's not natural evolution anymore, it's an human driven one. The specimens itself are left in a second plane, their main objective now is serve as food. Humans will take care of their reproduction. What would happen if we chose animals based on how much they suffered upon dying? Evolution would make them have more painfully deaths. And that would be the main purpose of the specimens. So finally, what's this debate about? I) Human driven evolution. Long term side effects it might have. II) Evolution is mean. It doesn't care about specimens, just species. It'll make us evolve to avoid our specie becoming extinct, but it might not give us better bodies/lifes by doing so.

First I want to make one thing clear: I'm not debating wether evolution is true or not, I'm assuming it is true. So I don't want any reply against evolution.

Secondly I want to make an important distinction between specimens and species. The first ones are living beings, whose objective is staying alive and creating descendency. The second ones are just information, mostly coded as a set of genes.

Actually specimens are the main tool the species have to keep existing (we're slaves of our own DNA, all it wants us for is to pass on the information that it contains).

However the mankind is starting to change that. We're creating a symbiosis between us as specimens and species itself. In fact cloning and genetic manipulation are alternatives for species to persists without needing specimens to do so. Evolution will change the species so they can get as more advantage as possible from that symbiosis.

For example: rabbits. We eat them, we like them, so we farm them. From the specimen point of view that's a total disaster, all of them get killed painfully?, most of them without even being able to create descendency.

But from the species point of view everything changes: we'll never let the rabbits become extinct because we farm them. That's exactly what the specie, the information that determines it wants, and evolution will help it to archieve its goals. Rabbits will become bigger, will evolve to have more meat, and more tasty one. They'll evolve to be eaten. Because evolution doesn't care about what happens to the specimens as long as the specie is being kept alive...

Most eatable species will evolve to be tastier. It's not natural evolution anymore, it's an human driven one. The specimens itself are left in a second plane, their main objective now is serve as food. Humans will take care of their reproduction.

What would happen if we chose animals based on how much they suffered upon dying? Evolution would make them have more painfully deaths. And that would be the main purpose of the specimens.

So finally, what's this debate about?
I) Human driven evolution. Long term side effects it might have.
II) Evolution is mean. It doesn't care about specimens, just species. It'll make us evolve to avoid our specie becoming extinct, but it might not give us better bodies/lifes by doing so.

You almost make it sound like our genes have a capacity for motive.

You almost make it sound like our genes have a capacity for motive.

Have you ever read The Future is Wild? It has the hypothetical last mammalian descendant evolving to be ever tastier to a species of arachnids which, for all intents and purposes, farm it. Humans driving the evolution isn't special. Plenty of animals are in competition with each other, and plenty others are seeking the most finely tuned symbiotic relationship.

Have you ever read The Future is Wild? It has the hypothetical last mammalian descendant evolving to be ever tastier to a species of arachnids which, for all intents and purposes, farm it.

Humans driving the evolution isn't special. Plenty of animals are in competition with each other, and plenty others are seeking the most finely tuned symbiotic relationship.

[quote=name:Clokr_]I) Human driven evolution. Long term side effects it might have.[/quote]Dogs (and cats... and various other pets.) It has been determined that a lot of the breeds will be incapable of surviving without humans to give them food and such, and apparently they love us for it! [size=1]They look hideous anyway. Teehee.[/size]

Quote from Clokr_

I) Human driven evolution. Long term side effects it might have.

Dogs (and cats... and various other pets.) It has been determined that a lot of the breeds will be incapable of surviving without humans to give them food and such, and apparently they love us for it! They look hideous anyway. Teehee.

^ Same for most domesticated crops. Corn originally looked like grass & had kernels resembling wheat. Most of the crops would die off without humans pollinating, farming, & reproducing for them.

^ Same for most domesticated crops. Corn originally looked like grass & had kernels resembling wheat.
Most of the crops would die off without humans pollinating, farming, & reproducing for them.

[quote=name:Syphon]Have you ever read The Future is Wild? It has the hypothetical last mammalian descendant evolving to be ever tastier to a species of arachnids which, for all intents and purposes, farm it.[/quote] No, but I've seen the discovery channel adaptation! Watch out for them squids.

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Have you ever read The Future is Wild? It has the hypothetical last mammalian descendant evolving to be ever tastier to a species of arachnids which, for all intents and purposes, farm it.

No, but I've seen the discovery channel adaptation!
Watch out for them squids.

Most people don't understand some rather fundamental concepts for how DNA functions. Sure most people know it unzips and that there are two halves that replicate one another. Less might know how the basic mechanisms for how this works. (With DNA polymerase moving along the chains of sugar phosphates and connecting corresponding amino acids.) Fewer still realize how often this process fails to do its job. Every second of every day, our genes are changing, on rather massive scales. If you think about it, there are so many different things in our environment that have effects on molecular structures. Many of the chemicals we eat/breathe/drink/absorb through the skin/ect. have the ability to migrate through cells pretty readily, and can alter the structure. Even things you wouldn't necessarily think of being important. (Did you know that any plastic bottle you drink out of leaves a plastic residue inside your body, and most forms of this plastic have biological effects similar to the hormone estrogen?) Heck even the sun shines radiation on us that has effects on our DNA structures. (One of many reasons why our cells on the outer layer of skin are dead.) The fact is is that our DNA is mutating all the time. Most of the time the mutations are rather unimportant, as much of our DNA is useless junk. Every once and a while though, the cell mutations have a result. For instance, while a cells DNA mutates into something that can reproduce quicker than the rest of your body, (generally considered an evolutionary advantage) our bodies attack this anomaly, and it develops into a tumor. (The reason it remains a tumor is that the cells can reproduce faster than we can kill them.) (As another side note: we use many more chemicals that can enter our nuclear membrane now then we have in the past, which is why cancer was generally nonexistent in ancient history.) Now as for human driven evolution. I consider it to be one of the greatest tools that we will ever have a chance to use. Although what I consider to be an evolutionary alteration is generally not what most people think of. When most think of evolution, they think massive population trends and ecology. THIS IS NOT WHAT MOST HUMAN ALTERED EVOLUTION ACCOMPLISHES. Although granted there tend to be scientific leakages creating altered populations among wildlife. Most genetically altered specimens are only that, a single entity. And most genetic alteration is much simpler than most people think. They typically think of altering somethings genetics as replacing chunks of DNA with some other code, and then letting this new creature grow to maturity. Most genetic alterations, though occur in things that are already grown and living. My point, human engineered evolution has been mainly portrayed by the side effects that businesses have latched on to. (Genetically engineer crops ect.) Most of our genetic engineering has done some great things. Yet most people don't consider it genetic engineering, even though it has no other name to go by.

Most people don't understand some rather fundamental concepts for how DNA functions. Sure most people know it unzips and that there are two halves that replicate one another. Less might know how the basic mechanisms for how this works. (With DNA polymerase moving along the chains of sugar phosphates and connecting corresponding amino acids.) Fewer still realize how often this process fails to do its job.
Every second of every day, our genes are changing, on rather massive scales. If you think about it, there are so many different things in our environment that have effects on molecular structures. Many of the chemicals we eat/breathe/drink/absorb through the skin/ect. have the ability to migrate through cells pretty readily, and can alter the structure. Even things you wouldn't necessarily think of being important. (Did you know that any plastic bottle you drink out of leaves a plastic residue inside your body, and most forms of this plastic have biological effects similar to the hormone estrogen?) Heck even the sun shines radiation on us that has effects on our DNA structures. (One of many reasons why our cells on the outer layer of skin are dead.)

The fact is is that our DNA is mutating all the time. Most of the time the mutations are rather unimportant, as much of our DNA is useless junk. Every once and a while though, the cell mutations have a result. For instance, while a cells DNA mutates into something that can reproduce quicker than the rest of your body, (generally considered an evolutionary advantage) our bodies attack this anomaly, and it develops into a tumor. (The reason it remains a tumor is that the cells can reproduce faster than we can kill them.) (As another side note: we use many more chemicals that can enter our nuclear membrane now then we have in the past, which is why cancer was generally nonexistent in ancient history.)

Now as for human driven evolution. I consider it to be one of the greatest tools that we will ever have a chance to use. Although what I consider to be an evolutionary alteration is generally not what most people think of. When most think of evolution, they think massive population trends and ecology. THIS IS NOT WHAT MOST HUMAN ALTERED EVOLUTION ACCOMPLISHES. Although granted there tend to be scientific leakages creating altered populations among wildlife. Most genetically altered specimens are only that, a single entity. And most genetic alteration is much simpler than most people think. They typically think of altering somethings genetics as replacing chunks of DNA with some other code, and then letting this new creature grow to maturity. Most genetic alterations, though occur in things that are already grown and living.

My point, human engineered evolution has been mainly portrayed by the side effects that businesses have latched on to. (Genetically engineer crops ect.) Most of our genetic engineering has done some great things. Yet most people don't consider it genetic engineering, even though it has no other name to go by.

[quote=name:Rantent]Most people don't understand some rather fundamental concepts for how DNA functions. Sure most people know it unzips and that there are two halves that replicate one another. Less might know how the basic mechanisms for how this works. (With DNA polymerase moving along the chains of sugar phosphates and connecting corresponding amino acids.) Fewer still realize how often this process fails to do its job.[/quote] Only DNA Polymerase III does that, we have DNA Polymerase I to fix the mistakes in DNA replication. :p

Quote from Rantent

Most people don't understand some rather fundamental concepts for how DNA functions. Sure most people know it unzips and that there are two halves that replicate one another. Less might know how the basic mechanisms for how this works. (With DNA polymerase moving along the chains of sugar phosphates and connecting corresponding amino acids.) Fewer still realize how often this process fails to do its job.

Only DNA Polymerase III does that, we have DNA Polymerase I to fix the mistakes in DNA replication.

Neanderthals were separate species, new study finds [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080505/sc_afp/scienceanthropologyneanderthals]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080505/sc_afp/scienceanthropologyneanderthals[/url] [quote] PARIS (AFP) - A new, simplified family tree of humanity has dealt a blow to those who contend that the enigmatic hominids known as Neanderthals intermingled with our forebears. ADVERTISEMENT Neanderthals were a separate species to Homo sapiens, as anatomically modern humans are known, rather than offshoots of the same species, the new organigram published Sunday by the journal Nature declares. The method, invented by evolutionary analysts in Argentina, marks a break with the conventional technique by which anthropologists chart the twists and turns of the human odyssey. That technique typically divides the genus Homo into various classifications according to the shape of key facial features -- "flat-faced," "protruding-faced" and so on. Reconciling these diverse classifications from a tiny number of specimens spanning millions of years has led to lots of claims and counter-claims, as well as much confusion in the general public, about how we came to be here. Various species of Homo have been put up for the crown of being our direct ancestor, only to find themselves dismissed by critics as failed branches of the Homo tree. The authors of the new study, led by Rolando Gonzalez-Jose at the Patagonian National Centre at Puerto Madryn, Argentina, say the problem with the conventional method is that, under evolution, facial traits do not appear out of the blue but result from continuous change. So the arrival of a specimen that has some relatively minor change of feature as compared to others should not be automatically held up as representing a new species, they argue. The team goes back over the same well-known set of specimens, but uses a different approach to analyse it, focussing in particular on a set of fundamental yet long-term changes in skull shape. They took digital 3D images of the casts of 17 hominid specimens as well as from a gorilla, chimpanzee and H. sapiens. The images were then crunched through a computer model to compare four fundamental variables -- the skull's roundness and base, the protrusion of the jaw, and facial retraction, which is the position of the face relative to the cranial base. When other phylotogenic techniques are used, the outcome is a family tree whose main lines closely mirror existing ones but offers a clearer view as to how the evolutionary path unfolded. The paper suggests that, after evolving from the hominid Australopithecus afarensis, the first member of Homo, H. habilis, arose between 1.5 and 2.1 million years ago. We are direct linear descendants of H. habilis. H. sapiens started to show up around 200,000 years ago. None of the species currently assigned to Homo are discarded, though. On the other hand, the Neanderthals are declared "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage," in other words, evolutionary cousins but still a separate species from us. The squat, low-browed Neanderthals lived in parts of Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East for around 170,000 but traces of them disappear some 28,000 years ago, their last known refuge being Gibraltar. Why they died out is a matter of furious debate, because they co-existed alongside anatomically modern man. Some opinions aver that the Neanderthals were slowly wiped out by the smarter H. sapiens in the competition for resources. Other contend that we and the Neanderthals were more than just kissing cousins. Interbreeding took place, which explains why the Neanderthal line died out, but implies that we could have Neanderthal inheritage in our genome today, goes this theory.[/quote]

Neanderthals were separate species, new study finds

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080505/sc_afp/scienceanthropologyneanderthals

Quote

PARIS (AFP) - A new, simplified family tree of humanity has dealt a blow to those who contend that the enigmatic hominids known as Neanderthals intermingled with our forebears.
ADVERTISEMENT

Neanderthals were a separate species to Homo sapiens, as anatomically modern humans are known, rather than offshoots of the same species, the new organigram published Sunday by the journal Nature declares.

The method, invented by evolutionary analysts in Argentina, marks a break with the conventional technique by which anthropologists chart the twists and turns of the human odyssey.

That technique typically divides the genus Homo into various classifications according to the shape of key facial features -- "flat-faced," "protruding-faced" and so on.

Reconciling these diverse classifications from a tiny number of specimens spanning millions of years has led to lots of claims and counter-claims, as well as much confusion in the general public, about how we came to be here.

Various species of Homo have been put up for the crown of being our direct ancestor, only to find themselves dismissed by critics as failed branches of the Homo tree.

The authors of the new study, led by Rolando Gonzalez-Jose at the Patagonian National Centre at Puerto Madryn, Argentina, say the problem with the conventional method is that, under evolution, facial traits do not appear out of the blue but result from continuous change.

So the arrival of a specimen that has some relatively minor change of feature as compared to others should not be automatically held up as representing a new species, they argue.

The team goes back over the same well-known set of specimens, but uses a different approach to analyse it, focussing in particular on a set of fundamental yet long-term changes in skull shape.

They took digital 3D images of the casts of 17 hominid specimens as well as from a gorilla, chimpanzee and H. sapiens.

The images were then crunched through a computer model to compare four fundamental variables -- the skull's roundness and base, the protrusion of the jaw, and facial retraction, which is the position of the face relative to the cranial base.

When other phylotogenic techniques are used, the outcome is a family tree whose main lines closely mirror existing ones but offers a clearer view as to how the evolutionary path unfolded.

The paper suggests that, after evolving from the hominid Australopithecus afarensis, the first member of Homo, H. habilis, arose between 1.5 and 2.1 million years ago.

We are direct linear descendants of H. habilis. H. sapiens started to show up around 200,000 years ago.

None of the species currently assigned to Homo are discarded, though.

On the other hand, the Neanderthals are declared "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage," in other words, evolutionary cousins but still a separate species from us.

The squat, low-browed Neanderthals lived in parts of Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East for around 170,000 but traces of them disappear some 28,000 years ago, their last known refuge being Gibraltar.

Why they died out is a matter of furious debate, because they co-existed alongside anatomically modern man.

Some opinions aver that the Neanderthals were slowly wiped out by the smarter H. sapiens in the competition for resources.

Other contend that we and the Neanderthals were more than just kissing cousins. Interbreeding took place, which explains why the Neanderthal line died out, but implies that we could have Neanderthal inheritage in our genome today, goes this theory.

A... NEW Study? Neadertal was never considered an ancestor of h. s. sapiens.

A... NEW Study? Neadertal was never considered an ancestor of h. s. sapiens.

I don't think they mean an ancestor. The study says that we're different species, rather than the Neanderthal being our cousins in the evolutionary tree by having descended from an earlier homo sapien variant/common primate ancestor of the same species. So modern humans are 'homo-sapien-sapiens,' and Neanderthals were thought to be within 'homo-sapien-____' but now they're taken out of the homo sapien category. But it'd be somewhat weird if some of us have Neanderthal genes in us...?

I don't think they mean an ancestor. The study says that we're different species, rather than the Neanderthal being our cousins in the evolutionary tree by having descended from an earlier homo sapien variant/common primate ancestor of the same species.

So modern humans are 'homo-sapien-sapiens,' and Neanderthals were thought to be within 'homo-sapien-____' but now they're taken out of the homo sapien category.
But it'd be somewhat weird if some of us have Neanderthal genes in us...?

[quote=name:Intranetusa]I don't think they mean an ancestor. The study says that we're different species, rather than the Neanderthal being our cousins in the evolutionary tree by having descended from an earlier homo sapien variant/common primate ancestor of the same species. So modern humans are 'homo-sapien-sapiens,' and Neanderthals were thought to be within 'homo-sapien-____' but now they're taken out of the homo sapien category. But it'd be somewhat weird if some of us have Neanderthal genes in us...?[/quote] No, they were never within homo sapiens. And that's what "different species" means. Although there is a significant following that homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis interbred to form homo sapiens sapiens, there's no evidence. It's a pitty they went extinct, they were better than us in every way (Except running ability...). We just thought up agriculture first, and oppressed our women.

Quote from Intranetusa

I don't think they mean an ancestor. The study says that we're different species, rather than the Neanderthal being our cousins in the evolutionary tree by having descended from an earlier homo sapien variant/common primate ancestor of the same species.

So modern humans are 'homo-sapien-sapiens,' and Neanderthals were thought to be within 'homo-sapien-____' but now they're taken out of the homo sapien category.
But it'd be somewhat weird if some of us have Neanderthal genes in us...?

No, they were never within homo sapiens. And that's what "different species" means. Although there is a significant following that homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis interbred to form homo sapiens sapiens, there's no evidence.

It's a pitty they went extinct, they were better than us in every way (Except running ability...). We just thought up agriculture first, and oppressed our women.

[quote=Shyphon]Except running ability...[/quote] Vocal capability you mean... We could speak consonants they couldn't. And your quip about agriculture made me think of [url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.environnement.ens.fr%2Fperso%2Fclaessen%2Fagriculture%2Fmistake_jared_diamond.pdf&ei=QO4fSPulDZfQpgTE5LHICQ&usg=AFQjCNHpbvOFHoSsu4wGyBYqm6kAHXyfUQ&sig2=rc7jOrLNGuWNROIb8j5-Ng]this.[/url]

Quote from Shyphon

Except running ability...

Vocal capability you mean... We could speak consonants they couldn't.

And your quip about agriculture made me think of this.

Ah ok. As for Neanderthals, I doubt they were smarter than us? @Rantent, yeh I read that from somewhere as well. Their vocal cords weren't as developed...

Ah ok.

As for Neanderthals, I doubt they were smarter than us?

@Rantent, yeh I read that from somewhere as well. Their vocal cords weren't as developed...

[quote=name:Rantent][quote=Shyphon]Except running ability...[/quote] Vocal capability you mean... We could speak consonants they couldn't. And your quip about agriculture made me think of [url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.environnement.ens.fr%2Fperso%2Fclaessen%2Fagriculture%2Fmistake_jared_diamond.pdf&ei=QO4fSPulDZfQpgTE5LHICQ&usg=AFQjCNHpbvOFHoSsu4wGyBYqm6kAHXyfUQ&sig2=rc7jOrLNGuWNROIb8j5-Ng]this.[/url][/quote] No proof of that. All we can say is that they had some speaking ability, due to their hyoid bones. (Have I ever told any of you that the hyoid is my favourite bone) [quote=name:Intranetusa]Ah ok. As for Neanderthals, I doubt they were smarter than us? @Rantent, yeh I read that from somewhere as well. Their vocal cords weren't as developed...[/quote] They had a smaller body size, and a larger cranium, so probably.

Quote from Rantent

Quote from Shyphon

Except running ability...

Vocal capability you mean... We could speak consonants they couldn't.

And your quip about agriculture made me think of this.

No proof of that. All we can say is that they had some speaking ability, due to their hyoid bones. (Have I ever told any of you that the hyoid is my favourite bone)

Quote from Intranetusa

Ah ok.

As for Neanderthals, I doubt they were smarter than us?

@Rantent, yeh I read that from somewhere as well. Their vocal cords weren't as developed...

They had a smaller body size, and a larger cranium, so probably.

[quote]They had a smaller body size, and a larger cranium, so probably.[/quote] The current humans surpass that of Neanderthals. And, a larger cranium does not mean it is smarter. Because Gorillas have larger craniums than a human.

Quote

They had a smaller body size, and a larger cranium, so probably.

The current humans surpass that of Neanderthals. And, a larger cranium does not mean it is smarter. Because Gorillas have larger craniums than a human.

In fact, mental retardation is associated with large skulls.

In fact, mental retardation is associated with large skulls.

[quote=name:BeDazed][quote]They had a smaller body size, and a larger cranium, so probably.[/quote] The current humans surpass that of Neanderthals. And, a larger cranium does not mean it is smarter. Because Gorillas have larger craniums than a human.[/quote] They also have much larger bodies.

Quote from BeDazed

Quote

They had a smaller body size, and a larger cranium, so probably.

The current humans surpass that of Neanderthals. And, a larger cranium does not mean it is smarter. Because Gorillas have larger craniums than a human.

They also have much larger bodies.

Intelligence is usually correlated with the brain mass as a proportion to body mass.

Intelligence is usually correlated with the brain mass as a proportion to body mass.

structure matters far more than size.

structure matters far more than size.